"Casualty comparisons: WW1 and WW2" Topic

[ This is primarily a UK/Empire-related question, but it's ok for members from other participants to jump in. ]

In WW1, the figure of 1,000,000 British Empire deaths is usually cited, of whom 700,000-800,000 came from the UK. I understand 25-30% of these deaths were from the Spanish 'Flu pandemic at the end of the war and other disease-related incidents (including PoWs dying in captivity for whatever reason).

For some reason, you never see a comparable figure for WW2 – indeed, it is hard to find any figures for the Empire as a whole, or its parts. Given that administration would surely have been more efficient in 1945 than in 1918, why is this? Is it a deliberate attempt to avoid comparisons and skew the figures to promote the "apalling slaughter" meme in relation to WW1 perhaps?

My understanding is that we suffered approximately twice as many casualties in WWI and this is often used as an example of how badly managed the war was.
Of course, this argument does not usually take into account that the BEF was facing a well trained enemy, with strong reserves, in defensive positions, for four years. There was also the political imperative to attack, understandable considering the strategic position of the French.

Couple quick searches found these – note that I didn't include the PBS link for WWI but it is very good as well.

WWI – link
WWII – link

link

A quick table h2g2.com/edited_entry/A2854730

The numbers look 'about right', but the 'total deaths for the British Empire countries must reflect military losses only.

Thank you for those figures, gentlemen. I note that UK/Empire deaths for WW1 run to 1920, taking in the Russian Civil War, the occupation of Germany, and a number of colonial conflicts (hence they are a bit larger than those I quoted).

Allowing for the Spanish Flu pandemic, UK and Empire military deaths in action were about 1.66 times those of WW2, but clearly we did much more fighting on land (the most obvious comparison is that we faced the main army of the main enemy for 4 years 3 months in WW1, and about 6 weeks in WW2!). Haig was commanding just over 2 million men in France at one point, compared to just over 3 million who served in the British Army globally in WW2; by my calculations, this was about 8 times the size of Montgomery's 8th Army in North Africa, and about 5 times 21st Army Group in N W Europe (is that right, as I'm not so "up" on their numbers?).

The losses, in both numbers and as a percentage of force, of RAF Bomber Command from 1939-45 would, I would suggest, outstrip any similarly sized unit over the four years of WW1. I imagine the Merchant Marine must have taken a fair old hammering, too.